Best Of

This is my photo quota for today - quite interesting.

It's a junction in Nottingham City Centre being changed from a traffic island with traffic lights to a signalised T-junction.



You can see how the T-Junction running lanes have been added first, so that traffic flow is maintained. The increased landscaping, footways and mobility tracks will be built round it.

The junction is at one end of Maid Marian Way, which is a 4-6 lane dual carriageway built through Nottinghams ancient street pattern in the 1960s, splitting the city centre roughly 3/4:1/4 .

The traffic down Maid Marian way is 16k vehicles per day, down from 27k per day in approx 2003. One reason for that is that Nottingham built a tramway system in the early 2000s, which now carries around 50k passengers per day.

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4z811v18jo
Scheme:
https://www.transportnottingham.com/project/maid-marian-way-roundabout-improvements/

We don’t have the crews to man the scrapped ships, and Albion and Northumberland were unlikely to ever sail again. By the time we had the crews (if we started recruiting like mad) the newer ships we have ordered will be coming online. The impact on amphibious landing capability is a problem, but overall the decision makes sense. Watchkeeper is obsolete and barely worth discussing.

HOWEVER we should be massively ramping defence spending. This decision is probably right but the macro picture is very wrong.

And let’s not forget how much of this is the fault of the Tories too, who ran down defence. The worst of them were Cameron and Osborne who ran down defence whilst asking it to do more, risking lives.

This Government looks bad on defence, but it follows one with a dreadful record too. As a nation, we just don’t get it.

I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.

There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.

There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.

I feel like I'm in the minority here, in that I don't see why agricultural land should benefit from any special IHT rules compared to other family owned industries, e.g. engineering. Maybe there is a case that capital invested in productive capacity should be treated differently, but I can see difficulties in defining it and personally don't believe it should be treated any differently to money in the bank, or residential property.

There is a separate issue of land being transferred from being UK-family owned to foreign individuals or investment funds. Again, we haven't worried about it for any other industry and I don't see why agricultural land should be different. Actually I am worried about this, but my concern is across the board, not solely agriculture.

There is another issue that currently food production appears to be uneconomic in the country. Should we be concerned about food security? If we are then we should take steps to ensure that farmers get a fair return. But, again, why should we be more concerned about food than (say) energy, or steel production? There's no reason for farming to be singled out for special protection, in my view. However I would note (as an opponent of Brexit) that we now have an opportunity to do something about all those things except none of the pro-Brexit people appear to be proposing anything, which I find odd.

You are rather missing the point already made by a number if us that no genuine family businesses should be paying IHT. Farmers happen to be the main point of discussion but Cyclefree, JJ and myself have all spoken about other family firms as well.

The whole basis of the IHT tax raid on businesses is flawed and will lead to businesses going bust.

Why should a family firm or farm be exempt from the same taxes everyone else has to pay? You could, perhaps, make a case that IHT shouldn’t apply to anyone. But what’s the justification for carving out farmers as deserving of special privilege?

Farmers with significant land holdings are some of the wealthiest people in the country: One of them appeared on Good Morning Britain yesterday morning who had attended a £30k/year private school followed by a £40k/year sixth form. Why should her family be able to evade paying the taxes that practically every other family in the country has to?

Because inheriting a house, savings, quoted shareholdings artworks is essentially inheriting a windfall.

Inheriting business property is inheriting the assets needed to make the business work. And sure, you could just sell out to a bigger entity, but concentrating the ownership of businesses in fewer hands may be counterproductive,

In more cheerful news, Russia is now advancing quite briskly in Ukraine

"Ukraine front could 'collapse' as Russia gains accelerate, experts warn"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0dpdx420lo

They're trying to change the facts on the ground before Trump comes in for The Deal.

Obvs.

Yes, but it means that the pressure on Ukraine to accept the Deal will be irresistible. Korea it is

Korea it isn't.
Whatever happens.

It will likely be a frozen war, an arimistice, roughly along the front lines as they stand, when the deal is made

As happened in Korea

1) Korea started as a genuine civil war, not an invasion. Millions on both sides migrated in opposite directions, and ended in territories they wanted to fight for.
2) The US was, of course, directly involved in the fighting.
3) Unlike Ukraine - where there have already been several ceasefires, followed by further Russian aggression, the Panmunjom settlement has lasted 70 years.
4) The US was willing to station substantial armed forces there for those seven decades to ensure the settlement.
5) The border something like a seventh as long as Russia/Ukraine, is largely mountainous, and readily policeable and defencible.
6) The opposing great power (China) has
no territorial ambitions on the south. Inlike, of course, Russia.

Apart from that, it's similar-ish, if you squint.

It's a brutal bloody war involving Russia, China and the USA all in a foreign country, close to Russia/China - just like Korea. It's also two systems fighting each other by proxy, just like Korea

It will likely end in an armistice because both sides are exhausted and running out of men, and both sides have nukes and perhaps the only way you can now win this war is with nukes: and no one will use nukes. As happened in Korea

Do the people involved have slitty eyes and eat a lot of bibimbap? No. Well done for pointing out that crucial geopolitical difference

FWIW I think the only alternative to Korea ,now, is outright Russian victory

No, Russia is losing.

How come, you might reasonably ask, when it's advancing and Trump has just been elected? Well, a bit* like how Germany was losing in early 1918, even though it was advancing and Russia had just withdrawn from the war.

Put simply, it's not advancing much at all, despite the numpty BBC headline. The article itself reveals a different story. So far in 2024, Russia has gained 2700km2. That's an area roughly the size of Staffordshire. In 11 months. In a country larger than France. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties. That is not winning, unless it's grinding Ukraine down even faster, which doesn't appear to be the case.

In early 2022, the average casualty was a 22 year-old regular soldier; last year it was a 31-year old Wagner mercenary (presumably mostly ex-prison); this year the average casualty is a 38-year old contract volunteer with little training: people desperate for the (high) pay and signing on bonuses - but that sort of person can't be found in sufficient numbers indefinitely. This is not a sustainable model, particularly when Russia is losing over a thousand soldiers a day (some might return: these are far from all being deaths but many/most won't).

Plus, Russia is running out of equipment. As noted in the article below, the war is costing Russia materiel much faster than they can replace it. So far, they've been able to make good out of reserves but that's unlikely to last through 2025 - another reason for the push now to try to gain themselves a breathing space.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/14/russia-war-putin-economy-weapons-production-labor-shortage-demographics/

To beat Russia, Ukraine does not need to occupy Moscow, it needs to break Putin's government or exhaust his army to the point of mutiny or other ineffectiveness. There are viable ways to both next year if Europe and other allies continue to stand by Ukraine.